TR 675 
. D58 

Copy 


1 










IPLOME 


decerne a 


Ajftfr r 


l DoONER ( R.-T\ de Philadelphie , 


PAR 


la 


? ^ijiulicalc Jfrancaise dq 
hotograpliie ft de ses 
Applications 


POUR SES EXCELLENTES PHOTOGRAPHIES 
EXPOSEES A LA CHAMBRE SYNDICALE EN L’ANNEE 

1910 

Tar it, It •/S S'ru// A igtn 




IfS VICF t'KESU)ENTS . 


LE SECRETAIRE : 



2£? 



















^Modern Portraiture 


“The natural progress of the works of men 
is from rudeness to convenience, from con¬ 
venience to elegance, and from elegance to 
nicety ”—DR JOHNSON. 


BY 

RICHARD T. DOONER 

w 


% • 
ft • * 


1822 CHESTNUT STREET 

PHILADELPHIA, PA. 




Copyright, 1922 


<3»^4p 

^ji,oSKtOvdo 1 . \j o-'y-f i-h— 
















VJV) 































fMW t 



PORTRAIT OF MISS FARIES 

A very good example of a simple head study, retaining all the interest 
of a full figure composition by the simple handling of light and line. 




MODERN PORTRAITURE 

“A double task to picture the finest features of ,the 
mind, and to most subtle and mysterious things 
give color, strength and motion .”—Akenside 



RT is the most difficult language to under¬ 
stand. As Hillard has aptly said: “Many 
persons feel art, some understand it; but 
few both feel and understand it.” Yet we 
find the general public firm in the belief that it can 
take liberties in directing the portraitist in ways that 
would not be thought of when dealing with the 
“masters” in other professions. 

A patient would never dare suggest to his physician 
the proper prescription for his special malady, nor 
would a client attempt to dictate to his lawyer how to 
proceed with his case. Yet these same individuals will 
blandly dictate to a portraitist the exact procedure 
that they consider proper to procure the best portrait 
of themselves—selecting quite frequently a portrait of 
a friend which they consider quite the thing. As a 
matter of fact, the average man or woman is, in most 
cases, much better qualified to dictate to either his or 
her physician or attorney than to a portraitist; the 
fundamental principles of medicine and law being 
much more generally understood than those of por¬ 
traiture. 





MODERN PORTRAITURE 


It is the purpose of this booklet to clear away some 
of the clouds that now befog the minds of most persons; 
to show what to seek and what to guard against in 
order to secure a truly strong portrait; to explain why 
the modern photographer, provided he is an artist, can 
produce portraits possessing all the individuality, charm 
and artistic merit of paintings by the great masters. 

The portraitist must realize, as did all the old mas¬ 
ters, that real portraiture is the record of human life, 
reflecting not only the physical but th oriental attitude 
of individuals, and is influenced by every change that 
marks the course and character of human life. 

Portraiture, at its best, is a most harmonious and 
dignified art. A true artist will not allow himself to be 
influenced by the erroneous beliefs or ideas of a patron 
but will endeavor to make such a patron desire the 
best that the artist’s knowledge can give him. 

Photography is not a fine art just as paint, clay or 
marble are not (of themselves) fine arts. But there is 
fine art in photography, paint, clay or marble. It is 
the use of any of these mediums, not the mediums 
themselves, that is all important. One frequently hears 
the expression applied to a fine photograph; “Why! 
that looks just like a portrait” —the speaker inferring 
that the only medium of portraiture is paint . Due to 
traditional acceptance of this idea, one of the most 












































































































































































































































. 







































In this picture the eye can wander around, taking in 
every detail, yet will always return with a restful 
feeling to the first and secondary points of interest. 


IN THE STUDIO 












MODERN PORTRAITURE 


difficult barriers to be overcome by the modem por¬ 
trait photographer is that the public fails to under¬ 
stand that the true artist can, through photography, 
rival the artist whose medium is paint. 

For the transmission of thought one medium is as 
apt as another. The really essential thing is that the 
portraitist be so thoroughly the master of his technique 
that his whole attention may be concentrated on the 
study of the sitter. Other things being equal, the lens 
has the advantage of speed and accuracy in drawing. 
This permits absolute absorption of the artist’s mind 
on his study of the sitter. 

To fully understand the development of photographic 
portraiture to its present artistic possibilities one must 
study the history of other fine arts and note how closely 
the lines leading to perfection parallel one another. 

We find, for example, that the infancy of all forms of 
art has been idealism, regardless of truth or character . 
In going back over the history of Portrait-Art we find 
in the very early stages of portraiture the statue of 
“Perikles” by Kresilas. At this period, Fifth Century 
B.C., there was no attempt at individual portraiture. 
The traditions of Greek beauty forbade anything but 
the idealistic statue (except, in representing a different 
sphere of life, we find the sway of elemental passions 
as represented in a centaur). Therefore we find the 



MODERN PORTRAITURE 


noble character of Perikles represented much the same 
as many other men of his station; differing only, as 
Pliny says, “as the artist made noble men still more 
noble.” In the centaur the artist accentuated the 
unlovely forms as factors in the expression of individu¬ 
ality. This was turned to admirable account in later 
portraits. 

At that time, however, in creating images of great 
personages, the only clue the portraitist gave to the 
individuality of the personage is marked by the head- 
gear or robes denoting his station in life. There was 
absolutely no attempt to portray character or the 
individuality of the subject, only to create an image 
of an ideal man. 

The first true portraitists in Sculpture were Demet- 
rios of Alopeke, and Dionysios, who lived in the Fifth 
Century B.C. It was at the close of this century that 
Portrait-Art passed from the tradition of the typically 
beautiful to a representation of the individually char¬ 
acteristic; the momentary and the ugly in the human 
form to express the activity of the human soul, 
and, so beauty and proportion no longer remained the 
highest ideal. 

We find this same condition existing some centuries 
later when Michael Angelo produced his wonderful 
contributions to the world in the forms of ideal men. 

[ 10 ] 



MODERN PORTRAITURE 


It was not until the time of Holbein, (1497-1543), 
Rembrandt, (1607-1669) and Velasquez (1599-1660) 
that we really began to get anything that represented 
some particular individual without any attempt to 
idealize. 



Mr. Dooner 

has been awarded 
Certificate of Merit by 

Pennsylvania Salon.1898 

Paris Salon.1900 

Paris Salon.1902 

Linked Ring, London.1903 

Dresden (Gold Medal).. .1908 

Paris Salon.1908 

Budapest Salon.1909 

London Salon.1910 

Pittsburgh Salon..1912 

Middle Atlantic States.1916 

Pittsburgh Salon.1916 

Middle Atlantic States.1917 

Pittsburgh Salon.1917 

Middle Atlantic States.1918 

Pittsburgh Salon.1918 

Pittsburgh Salon.1919 

Middle Atlantic States.1919 

National.1920 

Pittsburgh.1921 

Buffalo.1921 








































































Illustrating two very strong elements in composition. First the figure “8” 
giving rhythm, supported by the two vertical lines suggesting great height, 
in conjunction with the figure placed low in the picture. The hand 
and shadow reaching away back in the picture gives the third dimension. 


THE DANCER 





THE DEVELOPMENT OF PHOTOGRAPHY 

“The painter who is content with the praise of 
the world in respect to what does not satisfy him¬ 
self is not an artist, but an artisan; for though 
his reward be only praise, his pay is that of a 
mechanic —Washington Allston 


G 


HE earliest photographs were produced in 
1839. It is not strange, therefore, that 
I photography (still in its infancy) has only 
recently progressed beyond the effort to 


secure an exact reproduction of physical charac¬ 
teristics. 

This explains why the possibilities for individual 
expression in photography is so little understood; why, 
as in the early days of painting and sculpture, we find 
the general public flocking to the artisans who produce 
marble finished images instead of portraits of men and 
women of flesh and blood and distinct individuality. 

At the present time—due, no doubt, to the late war 
which has caused such a state of decadence in all arts— 
photography has (considering the average work from 
a truly artistic standpoint) lapsed back ten or fifteen 
years. 

There was a tendency in the period of 1900-1910 for 
photographers to express themselves individually and 
about that time it was an easy matter to select the work 
of the leading men in the country by their individual 


[ 13 ] 





MODERN PORTRAITURE 


handling. But now, if the work of many of these men 
was put on a wall together, it would all be sadly alike 
in the marble finish of their expressionless images. An 
analysis of the situation forces one to the conclusion 
that they have been caught in the tide of commercial¬ 
ism; have become mere “operators” who, for a fee, turn 
out the same stereotyped work—after a given formula 
—that the general public has been taught to accept as 
the standard. 

The criticism to which photography is often subjected 
is based largely on what the camera will do if left to 
“its own sweet will,” which is comparable to Wagner’s 
Fire music played by the hurdy-gurdy. If one will 
readjust these conditions and place Paderewski at the 
piano playing the “Ride of the Valkyries” and a real 
student of Portraiture in command of a camera, the 
results will again be comparable. Another comparison 
might be made, if the judgment was by an unbiased 
mind, by taking a portrait painted by a recognized 
portrait painter and a portrait made by photography 
of the same subject by an equally able portrait-photog¬ 
rapher and comparing them closely. It would then 
be clearly seen that it is not the medium , but the 
conception , that makes a portrait a work of art. 

The distinctive quality and character of photography 
is the manner in which the photographer draws with 



MODERN PORTRAITURE 


light and shade. When handled by an artist, photog¬ 
raphy produces line or tone at will. In the instance of 
the “gum” process, for example, the photographer is 
working step by step as the etcher producing his 
Mezzo tints. He has the added advantage of being 
able to multiply his color to the same surface to any 
degree that he desires and this process leaves the print 
at all times to his control to eliminate or add to at 
will, and picture what is felt as well as what is seen . 

Most people would like to have good portraits of 
the members of the family, but few people care to spend 
the time and money necessary in having such por¬ 
traits painted by an artist of acknowledged talent. 
Nor is it necessary that they do this. A successful and 
satisfying portrait does not necessarily have to be 
painted. The camera, when directed by one having the 
ability to see all that is fine and essential in portraiture, 
has even greater possibilities than the brush. The 
moods and expressions that tell the story of a person¬ 
ality are fleeting and the work by the modern Portraitist 
using the camera can more adequately seize the essential 
qualities than the great master handicapped by the 
slow process of the brush. 

It is not my belief that photographic portraiture will 
ever entirely supplant portrait painting. But I do 
believe that the time is not far distant when all persons 



MODERN PORTRAITURE 


of discriminating tastes will insist on the work of either 
a master painter or a true artist expressing himself 
through the medium of photography. In painting 
there will always exist the chromo factory and there 
will always be a demand for the highest type of 
portrait painters. In the photographic field there is a 
place for the post card studio and the individualist 
whose aim is a serious study of portraiture. But the 
quasi-artist, whose work is neither inexpensive nor 
individual, will cease to exist when the public is taught 
to distinguish between what is real and what is merely 
a gaudy imitation. 


I 


[ 16 ] 













































































































r| 
































FORTRAIT OF PROFESSOR SCHELLING 

In this study, the hands (which have such tremendous character that, even 
portrayed alone, they would be a portrait study in themselves) are held in a 
semi-low key, to keep them of less importance than the expression of the eyes 
and mouth; yet they are not subordinated to the powerful lines of the gown. 


I. 







THE ARTIST vs. THE ARTISAN 

“Whatever may be the means, or whatever the 
more immediate end of any kind of art, all of it 
that is good agrees in this, that is the expression 
of one soul talking to another, and is precious 
according to the greatness of the soul that utters 
it . ,} —Ruskin 


>^\ORTRAIT-PHOTOGRAPHY can be 
I divided into two classes: The first class is 
^ that produced by the really serious por- 

traitist, who should be judged by his results 
in portraiture, regardless of his business location. This 
class is bound by neither methods nor mannerisms, nor 
kinds of material. The sole object of the man in it is 
to produce a portrait in whatever way best suits his 
purpose and he is primarily concerned in the study of 
human nature. He has mastered his technique to a 
degree that enables him to forget it. It seldom occurs 
to him whether his sitter is clad in satins and fine laces 
or materials of a very inferior quality. These things 
are merely textures in relation to his flesh tones, to be 
thought of subordinately as part of his composition. 
His chief concern lies in the study of light and shade 
with which he draws his portrait. If he is not the 
absolute master in the handling of light his chances as 
a portraitist are small indeed. 

I have watched the play of light and shade on a 

[ 17 ] 





MODERN PORTRAITURE 


man’s face change it from the most intimate individual 
portrait to one that I would hardly recognize as the 
same person. It is therefore necessary that the por¬ 
traitist study the features of the sitter very minutely 
for the play of individual characteristics of line and 
contour and then select the lighting that will accentuate 
the most dominating characteristics and subdue those 
that are not desirable. 

It is my opinion that the modeling of the' face should 
be controlled as nearly as possible in the handling of 
the light rather than by retouching the negative after¬ 
wards, though I by no means agree with the opinions 
that the negative should never be touched with a pencil. 
The retouching pencil is a very useful tool in proper 
hands. I also believe that the etching knife can be 
used to great advantage in this art when handled by a 
skilled draftsman. 

I contend, however, in the case of serious portraiture, 
that the negative should never be touched by 
anyone but the portraitist who made it. The idea 
of a photographer claiming to make really serious 
portraits, who, after making his negative, hands it over 
to a hireling retoucher (who has neither a conception 
of the person nor an idea as to what the portraitist’s 
intention was in producing a certain subtle effect), is 
absurd. 


[ 18 ] 























































! UNTER DEM ALLERHOCHSTEN PROTEKTORAT j 
I SEINER MAJESTAT DES KONIGS FRIEDRICH : 
AUGUST VON SACHSEN 
INTERNATIONALE 
i PHOTOGRAPHISCHE AUSSTELLUNG DRESDEN I 
MCMIX 

| ES WIRD H1ERM1T BEURKUNDET / DASS DAS j 
g PRE1SGER1CHT DER 

KOLLEKT1V-AUSSTELLUNG DER AMER1- j 
KANISCHEN BERUFSPHOTOGRAPHEN | 
MIT ^ * f. y ALS TE1LNEHMER 1 
FUR HERVORRAGENDE LEISTUNGEN AUF DEM j 
! GEBIETE DER KUNSTLERISCHEN PHOTOGRAPH1E < 

| DIE GOLDENE MEDAILLE j 

^ ZUERKANNT HAT. / DRESDEN, DEZB. MCMIX ! 

das ausstellungs-direktorium I 

I.VORSJTZENPER 

! ___. 



jicaosasoscsBOfa! 
















MODERN PORTRAITURE 


Men who follow this “quantity production” method 
comprise the second group mentioned in the opening 
paragraph of this chapter. To those not knowing how 
to distinguish between the real and the imitation, the 
work of this class is frequently sold as “serious char¬ 
acter portraiture". The method employed for the sake 
of gain by this class is as comparable as it would be for 
a portrait painter to make a preliminary sketch, hand 
it over to his apprentice to make a finished painting, 
then sign it as his individual work. 

When a photographic studio becomes a work-shop 
of many trained hands or artisans under the direction 
of an artist (real or false) the work going out over his 
signature is not that of an individual portraitist nor 
the work of a master who never loses sight of his 
creation from its incipiency to completion. To quote 
Bulwer-Lytton on this subject: 

“The first essential to success in the art you practice 
is respect for the art itself.’* 

Such respect is certainly lacking where individuality 
and character are sacrificed to the god of bulk pro¬ 
duction. When the portraitist becomes a mannerist to 
such a degree that he makes each individual look the 
product of a certain studio, so that it is almost necessary 
to consult the records in order to identify the portrait, 
the true portrait quality has been lost. A first essen- 



MODERN PORTRAITURE 


tial to the highest portraiture is a sincere rendering of 
individuality. 

It is the duty of a true portraitist to render the 
essential dignity of the human face and figure. Violent 
gestures, strained attitudes, forced expressions are 
avoided by the portraitist who uses the proper restraint. 
A portrait is not an exhibition of technique, nor of 
skill, nor of masterly handling of any one medium, but 
it is interpretive representation of an individual person¬ 
ality. Only one possessing the necessary vision can see 
beneath the veil and bring forth, through the mask of 
human flesh and mental reserve, that which is beauti¬ 
ful but is hidden from the eyes of those who are not in 
sympathy nor accord with its existence. 

This explains why one of the greatest factors in 
portraiture is absolute concentration of the portraitist 
on his sitter. It brings to mind a saying of one of my 
old instructors, Mr. Thomas P. Anshutz, at the 
Academy of Fine Arts: “Learn your technique so 
well that you can forget it .” This is no less true in 
regard to portraits by photography than in painting, 
for the photographer who has to stop to consider his 
technique cannot possibly put the necessary concen¬ 
tration into his portrait . 

In contrasting the painted portrait and the portrait 
of photography, the painter is so absorbed in his work 

[ 20 ] 



MODERN PORTRAITURE 


that he may continue for hours without even wishing 
to enter into conversation with his sitter. As a result 
he may fail to realize that a bored and hopeless ex¬ 
pression is slowly but surely creeping over his subject, 
who is sitting idly by while he has been absorbed in 
his work to the extent of almost forgetting that his 
subject is a living being. On the other hand, the por¬ 
trait-photographer, having made his arrangements and 
spaced his canvas, can concentrate his entire energy 
on conversation so that interest will bring forth the 
quality of expression that is to be portrayed and work 
it up to the pinnacle. Then—in a fraction of a second— 
this expression is secured and held for all time. 



[ 21 ] 







PORTRAIT OF MISS MARY BURNHAM AND FATHER 

A happy combination of good spacing, well placed spots and ample room back and 
around the figures, without losing the point of interest and the portrait quality. 






THE DISEASE OF ‘ 4 MANNERISM * * 

“Art does not imitate, but interprets .”—Mazzini 


O NE of the greatest pitfalls to be avoided 
in the practice of portraiture is manner¬ 
ism, which seems to be a disease that is 
very contagious among photographers 
of the present day. The so-called “popular” studio 
manager will look at the work of a portraitist who is 
rpally striving toward the perfection of his art and see 
a picture with a “back light.” This he will immediately 
accept as a standard and everything he makes for that 
period will be made with a back light—no consideration 
apparently being given to the fact that the back light 
he saw was used to interpret some individuality . 

This same “manager” will next be attracted by some¬ 
thing the real artist has made in a “low key.” He will 
immediately start to make all his pictures printed very 
dark and imagine that he has accomplished the same 
thing that a master when the latter purposely worked 
in a low key from the inception to the completion of a 
particular portrait in order to produce certain gradua¬ 
tions of tone that are particularly and only adaptable 
to the individual being portrayed. The imitator, having 
absolutely no idea of the individual portrayed, merely 
considers this a style and mannerism practiced by a 
[ 23 ] 







MODERN PORTRAITURE 


master and therefore something to be followed on all 
occasions. 

It is only the keen perception of the true portraitist 
that is able to separate the subtle differences between 
the individual characteristics and the general style of 
modern times. It is the task of the portraitist to portray 
beauty without beautiful forms. Ugly forms some¬ 
times have an unsuspected wealth of expressive power. 
An interesting shadow can be made to redeem nature’s 
crudest facts and with the poetry of light, the common¬ 
place can be made beautiful by losing into the shadow 
what is undesirable and bringing into relief the features 
and individual lines that best depict the one portrayed. 
Play of light and shade and a certain play of line will 
go far to redeem the ever faithful portrayal of a homely 
personality. A fine feeling for grace of line will give a 
sense of beauty to any subject, but this alone will not 
produce a portrait. The modern conception of por¬ 
traiture is a picture which depends for its interest on 
the likeness of the individual. 

The great advance in the resources of light and a 
realization of the value of shadow is opening greater 
possibilities to the camera-portraitist with every sub¬ 
ject that he studies. It used to be the whole conception 
of a portrait was to show everything as far as possible 
in a full light, (there are some newspaper publishers 














































































































































PORTRAIT OF MRS. GEORGE JUSTICE AND CHILDREN 

A difficult problem in composition, because there are three portraits to 
consider. Here the point of interest emanates from the mother to the 
child on the grass, the boy being held within the circle by actual contact. 




MODERN PORTRAITURE 


who still want to insist on this) and the “lost and 
found,” the power of an obscure shadow, still has no 
charm for such as these. 

There is more art in “restraint” sometimes than 
there is in full portrayal. This is readily seen through 
a study of portraits painted by Whistler, who, according 
to Pennell: 

“Made no effort to reform, to improve upon Nature, 
only reserving to himself his right to select the elements 
in it that were beautiful and could be brought together, 
as the notes in music, to create harmony.’* 

In fact, restraint is the key to a wealth of possibilities 
to the painter or camera-portraitist. The lens used by 
the latter will give all, and more than all, that the 
human eye can see without discrimination. It is the 
mind of the one using the lens and his vision of his 
subject that makes possible the elimination of all the 
unessentials —that concentrates attention on the im¬ 
portant things by qualities of light and shade, line and 
composition. 

The summary possibilities of the portrait by photog¬ 
raphy is greater than by any other means because the 
subtle and fleeting expressions can be caught by a 
specialist in modern portraiture. When portrait work 
can be done with this rapidity and ease there is conse¬ 
quently a greater mastery obtained. The facility of 

[ 25 ] 





MODERN PORTRAITURE 


preliminary sketches in portrait photography make 
possible the incomparable results of the final supreme 
effort, achieved without the fatigue which degenerates 
into carelessness. 

As Ruskin has said, “all really great pictures ex¬ 
hibit the general habits of nature, manifested in some 
peculiar, rare and beautiful way.” In order to portray 
the rare, the beautiful or the distinctive quality, how¬ 
ever, one can scarcely ever accept nature in its en¬ 
tirety. Therefore, the artist turns to composition, the 
control of light and shade and tonal values to accom¬ 
plish by artifice what is impossible or undesirable to 
reproduce literally. The photographer who relies on 
the straight photograph without any modifications to 
interpret his impression is merely guiding a machine 
and therefore will reproduce nothing except what the 
machine will do for anyone having the knowledge to 
operate it. It is here that the vision and imagination 
of the master portraitist differs from the work of the 
mere artisan. 

The foundation of a picture is good composition. 
“The artist,” said Whistler, “ is born to pick and choose, 
and group with science, the elements contained in 
nature that the result may be beautiful.” An otherwise 
very fine portrait may be an utter failure because of a 
faulty composition. The difficulties of composition 

[ 26 ] 



MODERN PORTRAITURE 


occur frequently in the three-quarter length portrait, 
where the composition is usually, what might be termed, 
“L” shaped; the head occupying one of the upper 
corners and the hands or hand the opposite corner. 
Here it is the artist’s task to fill the empty space 
opposite the head with interest that will arrest the eye 
but at the same time lead the eye toward the head. 

Take, for example, the illustration opposite page 35, 
“Portrait of Joseph Pennell.” In this case I have used 
a “back light” in order to give me the drawing and the 
individual character and modeling of the head. I have 
utilized the same light to give space and form to the 
background in order to fill with necessary (but con¬ 
trolled) interest what would otherwise have been a 
blank uninteresting spot in the “L” shaped composition. 

Again, in the portrait of Mr. Wm. R. Breck, repro¬ 
duced opposite page 43, the “L” shaped composition is 
balanced by the use of a “back light,” but the treat¬ 
ment is totally different. This picture may be divided 
into any given divisions without the slightest loss of 
interest in the head, or, as a whole, every inch of the 
canvas holds together and has a meaning. 

Still another phase in composition may be illustrated 
by “The Dancer.” Here (opposite page 13) we have two 
very strong elements in composition. First the figure 
“8” giving rhythm supported by the two vertical lines 




MODERN PORTRAITURE 


suggesting great height in conjunction with the figure 
placed low in the picture. The hand and shadow reach¬ 
ing away back in the picture gives the third dimension. 
The sparkle of the costume is foiled by the simplicity 
of the background, giving strength again to the rhythm 
and pattern of the whole picture. 

The problems of painters and photographers differ, 
as the photographer must necessarily sum up his com¬ 
position as a whole, figuratively speaking,’at a glance; 
whereas the painter may tentatively conceive his whole 
composition and by gradual stages eliminate or add to 
it at his will. From this it will be seen that the 
photographer’s problem is one that requires much 
keener perception. 


I 


[ 28 ] 




































' 



























































MY WIFE 

This portrait was made in a space that was only suitable in size 
to achieve a head study; yet, by careful arrangement of the spac¬ 
ing, all in one plane, there is no distortion or lack of space felt. 











DETAIL OR INTEREST? 

“The only kind of sublimity which a painter or 
sculptor should aim at is to express by certain pro¬ 
portions and positions of limbs and features that 
strength and dignity of mind and vigor and 
activity of body, which enables men to conceive 
and execute great action ”—Burke 


HE question of detail is one of great con- 
m U \ troversy and is often times confused with 
J interest. A picture may be full of interest 
in every inch of the picture and yet not 
have any disturbing detail. On the other hand, a 
picture may be so full of detail that it absolutely loses 
all absorbing interest. Or, a picture may be full of 
detail so perfectly controlled that nothing disturbing 
arrests the eye. The picture that is well arranged will 
have its point of interest so dominating that all other 
objects in the picture serve only to lead to the interest 
of the main thought and result in a harmonious 
arrangement of the whole. It is within the painter’s 
power to overlook any disturbing detail, but the 
photographer must either remove it before he makes 
the picture or suppress it afterwards. 

Take for example the arrangement of “In the Studio,” 
reproduced opposite page 9. Here we have a picture 
that is covered in every inch with interest. The eye can 
wander around, taking in every detail, yet will always 

[ 29 ] 







MODERN PORTRAITURE 


return with restful feeling to the first and secondary 
points of interest. And, in wandering about, one’s eyes 
will never receive a jolt as would be the case if any 
details were insubordinate or so sharp in outline that 
the edges would arrest the eye with a jolt and detract 
from the principal interest. 

Photographers are constantly being called upon to 
break down the traditions in photography that a 
photograph, in order to be good, must show the grain 
of the skin and each eyelash and the weave of the cloth 
and the entire silhouette of the figure separated from 
the background. And, amazingly enough, this ignor¬ 
ance is not confined to the uncultured but will be met 
with even among intellectual people. These people do 
not stop to consider that when looking at one’s friends 
one does not see the grain of the skin, nor the weave 
of the garments they wear, and, if they did, they 
would not see the person. They also overlook the very 
important fact that the great charm in the beautiful 
arrangements that we see in the course of our daily 
life is almost entirely due to the “lost and found” 
quality, or, in other words, to the way that light and 
shade and atmosphere actually present objects to our 
physical eye. It is the mysterious quality of envelop¬ 
ment and feeling of space and atmosphere that can 
make the most prosaic objects interesting. It is in 

[ 30 ] 



MODERN PORTRAITURE 


the power of the real artist to take the most common¬ 
place and give it dignity and interest. But he who 
attempts the slavish rendering of every detail merely 
makes everything commonplace and monotonous. 
What I mean is well illustrated in the words of O. W. 
Holmes: 

“The one thing that marks the true artist is a clear per¬ 
ception and a firm, bold hand in distinction from that 
imperfect mental vision and uncertain touch which gives 
us the feeble pictures and the lumpy statues of the 
mere artisan.” 

If one would study portraiture for the pure joy that 
comes through appreciation of it, one would hear less 
often the expression “I don’t know a thing about art 
but I know what I like.” One who makes such an asser¬ 
tion admits that he does not know, nor does he care to 
develop the appreciation that brings with it an ever¬ 
lasting joy. The small investment of time spent in 
acquiring an appreciation of the beautiful or interesting 
adds a perpetual dividend of ever increasing pleasure. 
There are many men who are rich in financial resources 
but poverty stricken in appreciation. Is it not better 
that one should have a wealth of appreciation of the 
beautiful, that he can enjoy at all times, rather than 
the wealth of the universe and no love of beauty? 

A real portrait (revealing the individuality and char¬ 
acter of the sitter) provides a family record that will 

[ 31 ] 




MODERN PORTRAITURE 


be treasured and enjoyed. The task of the portraitist 
is to find the beautiful within the individual; the 
character beneath the mask. For there is something 
beautiful or interesting beneath the surface of the 
most commonplace individual. The serious portraitist 
seeks this subtle quality and brings it into his portrait 
with a firm, bold hand. 

The portrait records of Velasquez, not only of his 
patron, Philip IV, but of the dwarfs and idiots of the 
court, are valuable contributions to history—depicting 
far more forcibly than words the life of the court. 
Records by modem portrait photography will be just 
as valuable to our future generations. Portraiture is a 
message of history told more forcibly than text. 

The study of portraiture is the study of human 
nature. It is the duty of the portraitist to gather and 
bring to the surface all that is best in men and fix it 
for all time for the joy of mankind. And all men have 
within them the capacity of such enjoyment, if they 
will only open their minds to the beautiful. 

But, before the general public can be taught to dis¬ 
tinguish between the good and the bad, the true and 
the false, in photography portraiture, more of the 
workers in the field of photography must themselves 
master the fundamental principles of the art. 

The principle of repetition , for example, is one that 

[32 ] 







CERTIFICATE OF MERIT 

AWARDED TO 


5\. (L ? turner 

BY 


®Itr IHjtftagrapljrr's AsHnriattnn 

nf tljr little Atlantir States 

for ttiB rxrrllrnt photograph rxhibitrit of thr 

iFtrst Atutual (Enmnnttinn 
WasljtMitmt, 1. (£. 


atih Bflrrtrft for thr flrrmannit &almi. 








MODERN PORTRAITURE 


is little understood and much abused, by the quasi¬ 
portraitist. In most cases he has heard that he must 
have spots in his composition repeated. For instance, 
where the background and general drapery of the 
picture is dark the head, being the light and dominating 
spot, must be supported by one or more spots leading 
in or out of the picture. The most difficult arrangement 
of this kind is where the head and shoulders fill the 
entire space. The introduction of local and stronger 
lights is the solution of this problem and one that 
requires a great deal of study, for it is a solution that 
either solves the difficulty properly or destroys the 
portrait, for (improperly handled) these local lights 
make grotesque the natural character of the sitter. In 
the case of a light background, particularly in the 
portrait of a woman or child, the problem is not nearly 
so difficult, as the introduction of a gray shadow or a 
brilliant spot of light will almost always solve the 
difficulty, if it is handled with knowledge. 

Examine the portrait of Miss Faries opposite page 7. 
Here we have a very good example of a simple head 
study retaining all the interest of a full figure compo¬ 
sition by the simple handling of light and line, rendering 
the entire space full of interest with only a suggestion 
of detail. 













4 - 


















Illustrating the use of a “back light” to get the drawing 
and the individual character and modeling of the head. 


PORTRAIT OF JOSEPH PENNELL 







PORTRAYERS OF CHARACTER 

“The object of art is to crystallize emotion into 
thought, and then fix it in form.” 


—Francois Delsarte 



T IS my theory that the hands are the 
third most important factor in the por¬ 
trait, and, as a portrayer of character, 
should be only less important than the 


eyes and mouth. In portraying the hands we find 
again a decided advantage in favor of photography 
over other mediums. The expression of a hand is often 
ruined in composition by the moving of one finger, 
yet it is often necessary for a painter to work for 
hours on one hand alone and one may readily under¬ 
stand the difficulty of keeping a hand posed for such 
a length of time. 

To my mind it is a much easier problem to re-pose 
a head than it is to re-pose a hand, as I know that I 
have many times worked much harder in the composi¬ 
tion of hands than I have ever worked over the direc¬ 
tion or tilt of a head, which latter I often control 
more or less by the direction of my light—particularly 
since we have artificial light which can be controlled 
at will and moved about and around the sitter instead 
of having to request the sitter to move to suit the 
light. 


[ 35 ] 







MODERN PORTRAITURE 


But, to get back to the hands, there are so many 
elements that enter into this problem that the hands 
will always require the portraitist’s careful attention. 
They must be considered from the standpoint of the 
character of the sitter and be made use of in a way to 
best express that character; they must be considered 
from the standpoint of the tonal value, or spots re¬ 
quired in the composition of each particular portrait 
arrangement. 

In short, the hands may make or mar the entire 
composition. But the advantage of the portrait by 
photography in this respect cannot be over-estimated 
for once the sitter is arranged there is not the strain 
of keeping the subject for hours in the same position. 

In the case of the three-quarter figure the hands are 
always the most useful adjunct. If the photographer 
has the proper knowledge of the relation of his lens 
focal length to his composition, the question of hands 
in this case is comparatively easily handled. But, to 
go back to a former statement, none of this knowledge 
will be of any avail in portraiture unless it has become 
second nature and the portraitist uses it unconsciously, 
which, of course, can only be accomplished after years 
of study and constant application. Michael Angelo 
once said: “Art is a jealous thing; it requires the whole 
and entire man.” And the student of photography 

[ 36 ] 



MODERN PORTRAITURE 


quickly finds how true this is when attempting to 
master the art of photographic portraiture. 

In the portrait of Mrs. La Boiteaux opposite page 39, 
we have an example of character portrayed by the 
hands; the left hand languidly resting on the back of 
the chair depicting grace and charm, while the firmness 
and strength of character is clearly portrayed in the 
way the right hand holds the book. Note also that, 
while in this portrait there is a decided rhythm of 
line and repetition of interesting spots, all subordi¬ 
nate to the essential portrait quality of the head and 
hands. 

It is an erroneous belief of some working in portrait¬ 
ure that it is necessary to introduce some object into 
the composition that will indicate the calling or pro¬ 
fession of the sitter. This is a very cheap means of 
description and a theory that can by no means be 
carried out in all cases. One may be able to portray 
a musician with his instrument, or an artist with his 
palette at his easel and, in either of these cases, the 
composition may be enhanced by the introduction of 
such objects into the picture. But it by no means 
strengthens the portrait of a banker to be surrounded 
by currency, nor of a surgeon to place him amidst his 
instruments, lance in hand, etc., nor a lawyer orating 
before a crowded courtroom. 


[ 37 ] 



MODERN PORTRAITURE 


In the portrait of Professor Schelling, opposite page 
17, the note sheet in his hand is introduced merely for 
the purpose of attracting some attention to the hands, 
which have such tremendous character that even por¬ 
trayed alone they would be a portrait study in them¬ 
selves. In this study they are held in a semi-low key 
to keep them only of less importance than the expression 
of the eyes and mouth and the dignity and strength of 
the head; yet they are not subordinate to .the powerful 
lines of the gown. 

Compare these hands with those in the portrait of 
Mrs. La Boiteaux. This illustrates the futility of any 
formula for composition that can be applied to two 
cases alike. Apparently the hands are doing practically 
the same thing. Yet analysis shows that in the case of 
the portrait of Mrs. La Boiteaux the charm lies in the 
grace of the relaxed hand, whereas in the Schelling 
portrait the texture and construction and intellectual 
force of the hand that rests on the chair made it an 
essential part of this portrait. 



[ 38 ] 





PORTRAIT OF MRS. LaBOITEAUX 

An example of how character may be portrayed by the hands; the 
left hand languidly resting on the back of the chair, depicting 
grace and charm, while the firmness and strength of character 
is clearly portrayed in the way the right hand holds the book. 







BENEATH THE MASK 


“In portraits, the grace, and, we may add, the 
likeness, consists more in taking the general air 
than in observing the exact similitude of every 
feature .”—Sir Joshua Reynolds 


f> 


ORTRAITS of the same person may differ 
) very widely, though executed by equally 
able masters. One, being in complete 
► accord with the sitter, will give all that is 


best of the spirit of the man. The other, being mentally 
out of tune with his subject, merely maps the surface 
never being able to remove the mask. If he does suc¬ 
ceed in getting a portrait under these circumstances, 
it is nothing more than a lucky accident. 

The great difficulty with the average worker attempt¬ 
ing a composition lies in the fact that he imitates only 
the surface that he sees in other men’s work and thus 
fails utterly in his creation. This is due, of course, to 
the fact that he does not even understand the language 
of the work he endeavors to imitate. Had he under¬ 
stood, he would adapt the principles to his own con¬ 
ception. This type of mind will imitate the particular 
composition of an old master, which it seems fully 
confident it understands, arranging all their subjects 
and compositions according to this accepted ideal— 
never for a minute questioning the adaptability to its 


[ 39 ] 







MODERN PORTRAITURE 


own individual case. The result is drab, characterless, 
parrot-like imitations, absolutely void of ‘the subtle 
charm that marks true creative work. 

It is unfortunately true that even the most highly 
educated persons will carelessly accept these superficial 
imitations and are deceived by them, forgetting that, as 
Tuckerman has so aptly said, “A work of art is perfect 
in proportion as it does not remind the spectator of the 
process by which it was created.’’ 

It is equally unfortunate, from the standpoint of the 
serious workers who are striving to lift the work of 
photographic portraiture to its proper plane, that 
composition cannot be taught by laying down any 
set rules. For, as a matter of fact, composition is 
nothing more or less than the realization and apprecia¬ 
tion of the fitness of things. 

However, if one will keep one idea in mind when 
studying or passing judgment on a composition, all the 
complexities can be very easily simplified. Just ask 
yourself this question: 

“Does this or that detail lend to, build up, or detract 
from the main structure?” 

If preparing to produce a photographic portrait, ask 
yourself, first of all, the frank question, “Am I perfectly 
sure of my composition?” If so, then build it up step 
by step, keeping only in mind the essentials of the 

[ 40 ] 




MODERN PORTRAITURE 


composition that are significant to the arrangement in 
mind and discard the encumbrances. 

The portrait of “My Wife,” shown opposite page 27, 
is a pure example of what one may accomplish under 
very trying circumstances when one has the tenacity to 
attempt the apparently impossible. 

This portrait was made in a space that was only 
suitable in size to achieve a head study. Yet, by careful 
arrangement of the spacing all in one plane, so as to 
preserve the correct drawing, there is no distortion 
nor lack of space felt—even to the curtain, which gives 
no crowded appearance, yet it hid a wall immediately 
back of the figure. 

The group is also a subject that always presents a 
problem to both painter and photographer, and there 
are no two problems exactly alike in the matter of 
groups. In the group of Miss Mary Burnham and 
her Father (opposite page 23), for example, is one of 
the happy combinations where I have been able to 
combine good spacing, well placed spots and ample 
room back and around the figures without losing the 
point of interest and the portrait quality. 

The group of Mrs. Geo. Justice and her children 
(opposite page 25), presented a vastly different problem. 
Here I had three portraits to consider—with the dog 
thrown in for good measure. And, with all due respect 

[ 41 ] 





MODERN PORTRAITURE 


to the dog, he saved my composition by giving me the 
necessary link to connect the figure of the child on the 
grass with the mother and boy. Here we had the point 
of interest emanating from the mother to the child on 
the grass, the boy being held within the circle by actual 
contact. 


I 


[ 42 ] 
































































































































. 


















































PORTRAIT OF WM. R. BRECK 

This picture may be divided into any given division, with¬ 
out the slightest loss of interest in the head; or, as a whole, 
every inch of the canvas holds together and has a meaning. 






CONCLUSION 


“The study of art is a task at once engrossing and 
unselfish , which may be indulged without effort , 
and yet has the power of exciting the deepest emo¬ 
tions—a taste able to exercise and to gratify both 
the nobler and softer parts of our nature .”—Guizot 



N SUMMING up the essential points 
that, in my opinion, will be of greatest 
value and interest to those seriously inter¬ 
ested in modem portraiture and its artistic 


possibilities, it will be necessary to draw largely on 
methods and policies which have been developed in 
my own studio. I trust, however, to be acquitted of 
egotism in this connection by all readers of this booklet 
if the effort throws new light on the subject. 

The method I have found best suited in arriving at 
a successful portrait is to make a preliminary sitting 
of the subject, using various arrangements and finally 
selecting the one that, in my opinion, is best adapted 
to express my conception. After consulting my sitter’s 
preference I use, what might be termed, by a painter, 
these preliminary sketches and proceed to produce my 
portrait by making as many negatives following the 
accepted arrangement as are necessary to get my sitter 
so completely unmasked that I am able to register the 
subtle beauty of expression wherein he or she differs 
from any other individual . Then I select the medium 


[ 43 ] 







MODERN PORTRAITURE 


in photography that best expresses my idea and meets 
the peculiar characteristics or requirements of each 
subject. That is to say, I do not confine myself to the 
use of any particular line of “accepted” photographic 
paper or finishes featured by the regular run of photog¬ 
raphers as a selling point for otherwise ordinary photo¬ 
graphs. 

I endeavor by legitimate means to accentuate all the 
good I can find in my sitter and to eliminate whatever 
is unpleasant whenever not essential to the portrayal 
of the sitter’s personality. By legitimate means I mean 
the control of light and shade to bring out or elimi¬ 
nate what I wish; both by control of accessories and 
arrangement and by control of expression. 

My policy is to give the public what it wants after 
I have made it want the best I have to give. 
Mechanical retouching, such as is practiced in the usual 
studio, has absolutely no place in my work. The public 
may think that it wants to be flattered by such means, 
but it is only because knowledge is lacking that there 
is any higher means. 

I work with the idea and ideal that my portraits must 
describe real people, not polished surface images. I 
believe that every sitter has a right to expect an artist 
to portray his most pleasing personal characteristics 
in the most favorable possible manner. 

[ 44 ] 



MODERN PORTRAITURE 


Most portrait painters lose their first vital impression 
by their anxiety over technique which then becomes so 
labored by repeated efforts that all freshness of the first 
and true impression is almost, if not entirely lost. 
Whistler, alone, of all the portrait painters, deemed it 
necessary that a portrait must be finally arrived at 
through one supreme effort after thorough study of 
his subject through many preliminary arrangements. 

I do not subscribe to idealization at the sacrifice of 
individuality of character. I wish to portray what a 
man’s habits, thoughts and feelings have made him at 
his best; not what his soul may possibly achieve. My 
object is not to put myself in my portraits through 
any mannerism , but to make each sitter live in his or 
her own individual way through my medium. 

When I have a subject before me that I realize is 
going to be a difficult one to handle, both from the 
point of composition and expression—with probably a 
goodly portion of self-imposed ideas and fixed prejudices 
thrown in—I will work for my composition in the first 
sitting and may not even attempt to get anything 
except my general arrangement. The proofs may never 
be shown to the subject. In these cases I insist upon 
having a resitting, whereupon I start with the composi¬ 
tion and arrangement that I have selected from the 
first sitting. By this method I do not tire my subject 

[ 45 ] 




MODERN PORTRAITURE 


and am able to devote my attention entirely to ex¬ 
pression, which I do with all possible speed. It may 
take time, care and much skill to handle such a subject 
in order to catch the necessary mood. “Men habitually 
wear a mask” is an old saying that the portraitist can 
certify as being true. And it is his task to remove the 
mask and show in his finished product the best qualities 
that lie beneath it. 

It is my belief that unless a feeling of sympathy and 
confidence can be created between the sitter and the 
portraitist a good portrait will never be accomplished. 
Without this bond of understanding being established, 
a portrait cannot be produced that will pass the test 
of true merit which Beecher outlines in the following 
words: 

“The first merit of pictures is the effect which they can 
produce upon the mind , and the first step of a sensible 
man should be to receive involuntary effects from them. 
Pleasure and inspection first, analysis afterward.” 




[ 46 ] 




























































































































* 































































































